Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Matthew AppleNara National College of Technology
Personality and English Proficiency
TUJ Colloquium, Temple University Japan, February 8, 2009
Outline
Definitions of personalitySLA and personalityStudy background and
hypothesesResultsDiscussion and interpretations
Why personality?
The most individual
Instinctive, intuitive
Least understood
Least important?
Individual differences
Personality = ?
“A person's whole character and nature”
“[C]onsistent patterns of feeling, thinking, and behaving...”
dimensions traits
INTJ
extraversion-introversion
sensing-intuiting
thinking-feeling
judging-perceiving
Jungian archetypes
The MBTIThe Myer's Briggs Type Indicator
Eysenck's “Big Three”
P – E – N
PPsychoticPsychotic
Vs
“Tendermindedness”
EExtraversionExtraversion
Vs
Introversion
NNeuroticismNeuroticism
Vs
Emotional stability
“The Big Five”
Greenberg/Costa/McCrae
The Big Five
OCEAN
OpennessConscientiousnessExtraversion-introversionAgreeablenessNeuroticism
Extraversion-introversion (EI)
Emotional Stability (Emo)
Conscientiousness (Con)
“Super-traits”
SLA and personality
Rubin, Naiman, etc.
Ely, Ehrman, Oxford, etc.Gardner, MacIntyre, etc.
1970s
1980/90s
2000sBrown et al. (2001)Verhoeven & Vermeer (2002)
Studies in Japan
MBTI
P-E-N (Eysenck's EPQ)
Yawate-Guilford Personality Inventory (Y/GPI)
Problems
Small N-sizes
Too many questionnaire items
No standardized test scores
No construct validity
Study Background: Participants
186 3rd year technical college
students
5 departments5 intact classes
Study Background: Participants
28 items4 hypothesized factors
Study Background: Questionnaire
EI – Extraversion/Introversion (8 items)Emo – Emotional Stability (7 items)Con – Conscientiousness (7 items)
D – Desire to communicate (6 items)
Study Background: Questionnaire
Study Background: Proficiency Exam
TOEIC
T-ListT-ReadT-Tot
Analysis Methods
Descriptive statistics(check assumptions)
Convert TOEIC into standardized z-scores
Analysis Methods
Rasch analysis of construct validity
Analysis Methods
Principal Components Analysis
(factor analysis)
Analysis Methods
Convert items on factors into z-scores
(factor scores)
Analysis Methods
Correlation analysis(factor scores and
TOEIC)
Analysis Methods
Multiple regression analysis
DV = TOEICIV = Con, Emo, EI, D
Analysis Methods
Hypotheses
Conscientiousness will predict TOEIC scores
Emotional stability will predict TOEIC scores
Extraversion will NOT predict TOEIC scores
Desire will NOT predict TOEIC scores
Rasch Analysis results
Person reliabilities:*.80 to .88
*most similar to traditional Cronbach's alpha estimates as measure of respondent consistency
Rasch Analysis results
Item reliabilities:*.94 to .96
*Demonstrates how accurately items actually measure the construct for which they were intended
Rasch Analysis results
EI (Extraversion-Introversion)
Item 5 (ei2) misfit the construct
Rasch Analysis results
ei2: Feel at ease in a large group of people
たくさんの人の中にいると落ち着く
Table 1: Factor Analysis
Factor Analysis results
Factor Analysis results
Four factorsCumul. Variance: 56.74%
All loadings above .50*
*Stevens (1992) = .40 min.
Correlation Analysis results
Table 2: Correlation Analysis
Correlation Analysis results
TOEIC sections and Total(a given!)
T-List and T-Read = medium?
r = .55
Correlation Analysis results
Conscientiousness
r = .18* (T-Read)
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis
DV = T-ReadIVs (in order)Conscientiousness**Emotional Stability*Extraversion-introversionDesire to communicate
Hierarchical MR Analysis results
R2 = .07, F(1,166) = 3.05(p = .02)
B SEB β t
Con 0.18 0.08 0.18 2.43*
Emo -0.12 0.08 -0.12 -1.54
EI 0.09 0.08 0.09 1.13
D 0.13 0.08 0.12 1.64
And…?
One personality factor significantly predicted English reading scores…
But…Discussion
and interpretation
The stats mean…R2 = .07
β = .18
7% of TOEIC score differences explained
3% accounted for by Conscientiousness
What happened?
What is “English Proficiency”?
Discussion and interpretation
TOEIC ListeningTOEIC Reading
Seven parts
200 total questions
a-b-c-d
Passive knowledge
Active knowledge
Writing Speaking
Concentration
Memory
Test strategies
Stamina
More caveats…
Small sample size (N = 167)
Mostly male students
All engineering majors
Researcher = teacher
Next time…
1. Bigger sample size4. Speaking assessment
2. Balanced gender reps
3. Inclusion of more majors
Matthew AppleNara National College of Technology
Personality and English Proficiency
[email protected]@gmail.com
Thank you for your time and
patience!
